Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 280 posts

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#201

Post by QuietWatchtower »

sylens wrote: post #43

Silence from companies in terms of press releases and official statements, maybe. But almost everyone I know in the industry is somewhere between concerned and outraged over this. Another shining example in the first few months of this administration of how we should not defer leadership to private industry, because they will always be motivated by preserving their bottom line.

I've had the same experience about people in the industry being concerned. But private company heads are well aware of what's happening to the folks that have crossed Trump before or recently. Such as Harvard, state of Maine, the law firms strong armed to doing pro-bono.

Anyone surprised that the greedy executives at the top don't care if anything were to happen to Chris Krebs, Brian Krebs, Bruce Schneier, etc. under this admin is naive to this new dynamic. Nonetheless, it's disgusting to see.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#202

Post by grumio »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #196
grumio wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. Just because Fox News repeats false claims over and over doesn't make them true. Do you have sources? 2000 mules was debunked. Fox News settled for their false claims against Dominion. Court awarded damages to that one victim who was accused of smuggling a flash drive of "fraudulent votes" or whatever. Don't fall for the firehose of bullshit.…

>She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real. She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went…

Given up being a debunked 2020 election conspiracy apologist?

The Steele Dossier was commissioned in 2016, before the election. Trump is claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" well after. Both bad. But not the same.

Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. (edit to add: Challenging, and getting their day in court, is fine! However,) No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. (edit to add: Despite losing in court, they continued to spread debunked conspiracies, and still claimed it was "stolen" without evidence. And still tried to hold on to power, Trump asked Pence to "do the right thing", and declare Trump the winner despite losing. This is the bad part.) Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#203

Post by wakawaka28 »

grumio wrote: post #202
wakawaka28 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real. She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went…

Given up being a debunked 2020 election conspiracy apologist? The Steele Dossier was commissioned in 2016, before the election. Trump is claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" well after. Both bad. But not the same. Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. (edit to add: Challenging, and getting their day in court, is fine! However,) No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. (ed…

Well this is what I'm talking about: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-d... Hillary paid a fine for her 2016 antics during the Biden administration.

>Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.

I think the key here is that not enough was proven to change any results. But the margins were close. Candidates routinely challenge elections (even Kamala was fundraising to challenge her clear defeat), and some (like Hillary and Trump) never accept it all the way. These things are all similar. The media pretends that everything is uniquely bad when Trump happens to do it and they turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the exact same stuff. It is exhausting to argue with people who refuse to understand this hypocrisy happening right before their eyes.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#204

Post by shadowgovt »

layer8 wrote: post #120
shadowgovt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something interesting to watch about the current executive is he never talks about the future concretely. Keep an eye on his rhetoric. He'll talk in broad strokes, bright-shining-future abstracts... But he never talks about anything specific. Never about how any specific policy will create a specific good outcome. No concrete ideation. An idea that has been floated on this topic is that he's not actually capable of i…

He'll likely live another 15 years or so. I'm pretty sure he's imagining a future for himself. He's talking about a third term, which means at least eight years of "future". He also has children whose continued success he probably cares about. That said, I agree that he doesn't seem interested in building anything but his personal kingdom (including walls to protect it).

> He also has children whose continued success he probably cares about.

Does he ever talk about them using anything other than abstract platitudes like "great?"

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#205

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

krapp wrote: post #184
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that the "system" of organised religion is very broken and goes against the teachings of Jesus. As far as I can tell, Trump is probably the closest figure to the anti-christ in terms of his greed and lack of charity. Personally, I don't think that the organised Catholic church was about following Jesus' teachings, but more about consolidating wealth and power. It's disingenuous to call it "Christianity" i…

Jesus was a Jew preaching within a framework of Judaism which he clearly believed in and claimed authority from. That framework rejected him, and I can sympathize with arguments that the system of "Christianity" that developed was not the system he intended, but I don't think it would be accurate to describe Jesus as anti-system per se. Either way, any definition of Christianity that excludes Catholicism or any other…

> It's like people defining Capitalism to require pure free markets, just so they can say the US or British Empires never really engaged in Capitalism. It just seems like an exercise in semantics.

Not quite as real-world Capitalism has an approximation of free markets. I would say that's quite different from "Christians" going against welcoming strangers and feeding/healing the poor. In my view Jesus was against being judgemental, so sects that prioritise being judgemental cause me some cognitive dissonance when they are described as Christian.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#206

Post by belorn »

_cenw wrote: post #7

My experience is that everyone who's not close to any of these impacts is apathetic or treating events like they're reality TV, and even light attempts at convincing that there's more going on and that we might be in a historic and bad situation is met with hostility as if you just told someone's small kid that Santa isn't real. At best they care about the financial parts of the news.

Politics and media has for the last two decades been operated on generating engagement through outrage, and it seems that we have arrived at the peak of what that model was able to do, with a very sharp decline into apathy. More outrage will not convince people to care. Even the financial parts had very limited impact towards political engagement.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#207

Post by shadowgovt »

hiatus wrote: post #140
shadowgovt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get special elections going and get a working congress That's not actually legal in many (most?) states. Recall is not a universal feature. What you're advocating for is civil war. In many states, the only way to get Congresspeople to leave would be "voluntarily" (i.e. "We threaten to burn down every piece of property you have if you don't give up your seat"). Which, actually, has worked deep in America's past; the…

I think you are conflating two concepts. Most states do not allow recall of state legislators as you mentioned, but recalling federal legislators is not allowed in any state—there is no constitutional mechanism enabling it.

You are quite correct. Reinforcing the notion that the only way to get these people to leave off-season is "voluntarily."

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#208

Post by jonahbenton »

awnird wrote: post #187
jonahbenton wrote: post #8

The silence from cybersec, with a couple of exceptions, about DOGE is stunning to me. Not this story but what I thought the headline referred to.

Have you considered that almost every worker in tech, indeed almost every American, supports what's happening?

The idea of DOGE, of course! But over and over anecdotal conversations about the huge difference between mental model of what one thinks DOGE would be doing vs all of the reporting about what is actually happening- Elon Musk's "approval" is bottoming out for a reason, the town halls are angry and nearing violence for a reason. Nobody wants what is actually happening.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#210

Post by shadowgovt »

deadbabe wrote: post #32
bambax wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What else can be done? Civil war. It will probably have to come to this, some day or other.

If you’re not willing to pick up arms and fight, chances are no one else is, so it will never happen. Most likely nothing can be done and people will just live under a totalitarian fascist regime for the duration of their lives. Keep talking about civil war, you’ll be imprisoned and silenced. You should delete your post.

Civil war has a tendency to exponentiate. It doesn't take more than a few people to initiate it (assuming the rhetorical and attitude circumstances are favorable). The 1861 war started with one militia and one fort (really, depending on what historian you're talking to, it started with one religious fundamentalist family and a single raid on Harper's Ferry).

In 1861, people picnicked on a hillside to watch the first army-to-army fight of the war. By the end of the war, cities had been burned down.

Post reply on HN